Your assertions have been so wrong, no one takes what you babble about seriously.

Indeed. There’s no need to argue against word salad. The only thing anyone needs to do is laugh at it.

As for you, comradebob, apparently silencing is yet another one of those concepts your peabrain cannot grok. No one is silencing you. What people are doing is expressing their desire to exercise their freedom not to have to associate with your rancid ass.

In with that theme in mind, I will not personally be returning to participate in the Thunderdome thread until I see that comradebob is banhammered.

Sorry, shitbag but that is a piss poor defense. Even for the people I like, I do not need to point out that “I like you”. Besides, you have done more than state “I like you”. You have also asked to exchange photo, claim that we would be great friends and lesbians are lesbian only until the biological need to procreate overwhelms them. Also, “feisty” is a typical sexist putdown to a legitimately angered woman.

Call that a lie by omitting.

Also, where is the consensus that Stephen Jay Gould.

Also, I am not stalking you. I am mocking you. But you are so self centered, you ignore the fact that no one here likes nor respects you. Even those people that most of us regulars have low regard for have shown their disgust for your actions.

I’m amused at being ostentatiously ignored by drosera in that thread; the truth of course is that drosera has no good response to my comments and this is the most face-saving way to cope with that fact.

Doing the rounds of the blogs I had heard Mabus had been sighted over at Slacktivist recently, but that’s almost certainly a typical Mabus nym on the Pharyngula thread (archangelmikes) — over at A+ he’d used similar nyms such as opsarchangel, opsarcangels, opsarcsangels (among many).

freefink (#433),

parhaps you could provide a link to support your ‘sexist & transphobia’ assertion?

No. The sexism is all too obvious (have a look at Stephanie Zvan’s most recent thread). The transphobia is more evident in the dehumanising and degrading nature of comments about transgender people implicitly denying their assertions of gender identity, by deliberately misnaming or misgendering them. I discovered that a comment I had written about gender-neutral pronouns (where I expressed a personal preference for an invented pronoun like ‘ze’ over the singular ‘they’ or the straight-forward binary pronoun ‘she’ as the least wrong options) had been highlighted for general mockery over at the other place.

This led to the (re)invention of their unofficial forum policy on gender-neutral pronouns, which is to use the dehumanising neuter pronoun ‘it’ (don’t ever refer to people as ‘it’ unless you know they’re happy being dehumanised) combined with the generally problematic s/he (again, binary-identified trans people may want a specific pronoun rather than the combination of two, and some genderqueer people may wish to stress neither of the gender binary options).

Some transgender people in the atheism/skepticism community who are severely marginalised by society in multiple ways have been especially attractive targets for mockery over at that other place. In such cases, it’s not just transphobic language or dehumanising language that is being employed, the mockery there is sexist, ableist, classist, racist, and demonstrates huge gaps in empathy, understanding, and basic humanity. Having read SGBM’s comment from last December, I agree we shouldn’t be encouraging people to go over there.

The funniest part of this: They have a forum called “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” and this forum title shows up at the top of every message posted there so every single post on this forum shows up in the search results. Despite this, “Skepchick” and “Myers” still manage to score more hits. How? Because the “ranting about FTB and Skepchick” thread has over fifty times the number of posts as the entire “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” board. This board has had four posts in the last two days. The rant thread has had 670.

It’s more than clear what the ‘pit is all about, even to us who refuse to venture there, as hate sites aren’t our thing, but for those who are particularly dense, this post should help in making the obvious, well, obvious.

This led to the (re)invention of their unofficial forum policy on gender-neutral pronouns, which is to use the dehumanising neuter pronoun ‘it’

Wow. Just wow. Are they trying to calculate how to do the most harm with the least effort, or is it mere incompetence? I may have difficulty parsing text that uses xe or hir, singular they may be sometimes awkward, and she may be wrong just as often as he, but at least they still acknowledge that the subject these words identify is a human being.

On the other hand, you did catch me blind sided. I was more worried about goober, than persistent. I scoured the internet for goober sensitivity. My only serious hit was peanut allergies. Persisting, I tried a little for twisty obscure associations. The best I could muster was that Goober and Gomer were cousins in fictional Mayberry. Jim recently got married up the road in Seattle. Therefore I am homophobic. Even for me that seem to be a stretch. I figured I was safe. Wrong. I dropped the ball. Caine grabbed on to “you are a persistent one” and ran for a touchdown. (Damn my metaphors are getting all mixed up here). Live and learn.

No matter how often I look up definitions, in the heat of battle I invariably get confused. Analogy, metaphor, simile and metonymy are my current problems. Any good suggestions for keeping them distinct in my mind. Perhaps some simple tips for a simple mind?

I was more worried about goober, than persistent. I scoured the internet for goober sensitivity.

Seeing that in the last T’dome I said that I took 8th graders to Six Flags over Georgia (the largest U.S. producer of goober peas), I simply assumed that you were being an asshole about my living in the South. Ranked against the other assholishness, it was peanuts.

For the benefit of of our house sexist fuckwit bear, from a post by A. Noyd:

We all grew up in a society steeped in sexism, where misogyny is normalized, so it’s foolish and pointless to assume people we don’t know aren’t sexist or, at least, unwittingly carrying around a lot of sexist baggage.

“Not sexist” is not the default. “Not sexist” is not something you can just decide to be and you’re done—poof, no longer sexist. It’s an ongoing process of hard work deconverting your mind from the sexist defaults. So, unless you’re willing to show evidence of that work, like everyone else around here does, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

I won’t hold my breath expecting you to understand, however, if you think all the sexist crap you have vomited up all over is going to be forgotten, you are sadly mistaken. It’s obvious that you don’t care in the least about being a sexist assclown and perpetrating harm, however, we do care. Your sexism is blatant in your writing – you address women very differently from men. You’re a condescending, fuckwitted git who is upset that he has no upper hand in the power dynamics here and those damn uppity women keep calling you out. Tsk.

Hi ck, as far as the pronoun (s/h/it) goes, it’s not exactly an original joke — on Twitter, one of the ‘Elevator Truthers’ with a nym of ‘Dawkinsia’ (oh, I wonder who xe’s modelling hirself on?) was abusing the transgender women bloggers here at FTB, Natalie Reed and Zinnia Jones. For my trouble in reporting the Dawkinsia account as spam, I was referred to as ‘she/it’ because xe ostensibly couldn’t work out what the appropriate pronoun was — and ‘it’ it isn’t!

I don’t care whether they mean s/h/it to be merely a joke or whether they wish to be openly abusive. It’s not incompetence at work (contra Hanlon’s razor), it’s their brand of being assholes.

Also for the benefit of the entitled senescent ursine, this analogy comes courtesy of occasional commenter Hershele Ostropoler, via John Scalzi’s Whatever blog:

If you step on my foot, you need to get off my foot.

If you step on my foot without meaning to, you need to get off my foot.

If you step on my foot without realizing it, you need to get off my foot.

If everyone in your culture steps on feet, your culture is horrible, and you need to get off my foot.

If you have foot-stepping disease, and it makes you unaware you’re stepping on feet, you need to get off my foot. If an event has rules designed to keep people from stepping on feet, you need to follow them. If you think that even with the rules, you won’t be able to avoid stepping on people’s feet, absent yourself from the event until you work something out.

If you’re a serial foot-stepper, and you feel you’re entitled to step on people’s feet because you’re just that awesome and they’re not really people anyway, you’re a bad person and you don’t get to use any of those excuses, limited as they are. And moreover, you need to get off my foot.

See, that’s why I don’t get the focus on classifying harassers and figuring out their motives. The victims are just as harassed either way.

(In case you don’t get the point: you’ve been stepping on toes here repeatedly, and either refusing or being terminally slow to get off those toes when prompted multiple times. Don’t be an ass. Learn some new tricks, like good-naturedly apologising instead of quibbling and doubling down.)

Will 8th grade basics and mnemonics do?
A simile uses like or as. Look at the word. It has the consonant L for like AND the consonant S for as.

A metaphor figuratively states that something is something else. “Truth is beauty.” Imagine a scale: You can put truth on one side and it will balance with beauty on the other. OR (the ending of metaphOR) you can switch them around and they will still balance. “Beauty, truth.”

An analogy is a paired simile. Up is to down as in is to out.

Metonymy is fun shorthand. If you don’t want to say the whole phrase “United States film industry,” say “Hollywood.” If you want to shorthand “the administration and/or staff of the executive branch of the United States Government,” you say…. If you want to refer to a meal being served when there’s really no concern about the menu, you say something like a $500 per plate fundraiser.

As for 8th grade basics I’ll take those too. The 8th grade one one of the most miserable years of my life. It wouldn’t surprise me if I missed some of the basics. I had just lost my hearing and the kids were not about to let the disability go unpunished. The only good thing about the 8th grade was a couple of outstanding teachers and the fact that 10th grade was even worse.

Thanks again for the tips (and sorry about making the post all about me again…)

Sorry, no I wasn’t trying to wag my tail in any derogatory way. It was an unloaded question on my part. You previously responded in a way I could relate to, so I thought it worth an ask. My reputation precedes me, and it’s not unreasonable for you to assume as you did.

I do have a nasty habit of being snarky when I feel insulted. I’m working on it. That’s why I’m here.

We understand that; we feel that snarky is not a bad thing if you’ve actually been insulted without good reason. I tell you this: we felt we were snarky and insulting you for good reason. Really now…people dealt with what we felt was the substance of your very first comment on Pharyngula (let alone Thunderdome) so you may have forgotten something. Do you remember the first paragraph you gave us as your chosen introduction?

Never read a Thunderdome thread before. Wish I could reclaim those precious minutes. Oh well, I’ll try a little self-deception and call it a difficult education. Even so I’m strangely drawn to add to the insa…(ooops almost slipped there), inanity.

You just might be good company if there’s a jaw drop and a “DOH!” over that.

You just might be good company if there’s a jaw drop and a “DOH!” over that.

Don’t hold your breath. From their first appearance here at Pharyngula (and not in TDome), there has been an open contempt for social justice issues and those who fight on that score; open, ongoing sexism scattered about with complete disregard for us subhumans and a repeated resistance to thinking.

It’s not incompetence at work (contra Hanlon’s razor), it’s their brand of being assholes.

I cannot say I’m surprised. Stupid jokes aside, it does seem that more often than not, the most harmful choice is used by that crew in their efforts to damage FtB, regardless of how much other collateral damage it inflicts.

Yes, athyco you are right. I’ll just add that at least on the receiving end sometimes it’s difficult to recognize the good reason.

Not that I really want to draw any more attention to it, but my comment here in T-Dome was not my first on Pharyngula. After extracting my foot, I decided to restrict myself to the Dome until I was ready for prime time. Another bad habit of mine is over-sympathizing with an underdog, ignoring how he may have earned the status, and looking for common ground. Doesn’t work too well.

Mr bear:
Are you really this obtuse? Do you not see the disdain with which you are shown? You are no comrade, but you are a sexist ass. I do not have quite as many fuck you’s to direct your way as I do toward everyone’s not-so-favorite Islamophobic bigot, SteveoR, but here, take 2 fuck you’s and don’t bother calling in the morning.

A friend recently gave me a small collection of spice blends, the Two Snooty Chefs brand. So I brushed the fillet with olive oil, sprinkled some Snooty Salmon Chemise on top and grilled. Happy tummy time.

athyco, I came in brashly, full of snark and myself. The folks handed it all right back. Some with good reason, some without.

Hi Tony – Right back atcha there. When I deal with others, I allow a certain amount of social respect towards others. Not much, just enough allow a peaceful beginning. After that respect must be earned. You just burned your allotment and have gone in the hole. So with your choice of introduction, you don’t have to worry about comradeship. I recently did something similar, so I speak with some experience.

So with your choice of introduction, you don’t have to worry about comradeship.

Huh. You “recently” did something similar, but have learned little to show for it. oldmrbear, what would you think about acknowledging to Tony that you’re a work in progress, as you began to do in #567? No? Well, that quickly do you show that I am a trusting fool.

Again, that is. I can’t forget the douglas11something episode. My benefit of the doubt node is out of kilter. With work, I may be able to suppress it down to misfiring only once a month or something.

Sorry athyco, don’t endanger your trust, make me earn your respect. As for Tony, after that intro, it is difficult to open up and be vulnerable. Tony, I acknowledge my assholeness, despite appearances I am trying to learn, and the results may be hard to see just yet. Despite your fierce facade, you may actually be a decent human being and it would be my loss not to know.

Now for some thought thundering around my dome:

When pondering on the concepts of social privilege especially in regards to sexism and racism I find it useful to think in terms of acute and chronic pain and the protective nature of privilege. For someone well endowed with privilege like me. Many bad things in life are temporary, like acute pain. Yeah, it hurts like hell, makes me cry or scream, anger flares and I’m apt to strike out. Yet through it all there is the knowledge and the security of knowing that by this time next year, the pain will be gone.

Those less fortunate than myself do not have that knowledge and protection. Their pain is chronic, it never goes away. The pain itself doesn’t have to be huge, it’s the chronic nature that destroys the human spirit. No relief and litlle hope. Crushing.

Now I can’t remember if that’s a metaphor, analogy, simile, allegory or what ever, but it is a tool I can use to keep my head centered.

you make it very difficult to control my snark. but that is my problem.

Learning is not a passive absorption process. I’ve been listening for years. The next step is to practice. To see if I actually understood the concepts and procedures. That’s why I’m here. Sometimes it ain’t very pretty.

Now, perhaps you noticed in your analysis that I offered an actual idea up in 573. A transition from reactivity to conversation. Even if just a baby step. I’m not gonna twist your arm, but if you want to comment on my little tool that would be cool too.

I’m not an employer, doling out respect dollars, docking your pay for this, awarding you a bonus for that, making you work for it–sulky if you feel underpaid and scornful if you think I’m running a poor respect business by paying you too much for the current market.

To me, oldmrbear, your idea of “respect” looks authoritarian: regimented and metered and obligated, as joyless as year after year after year with gifts only on birthday and Christmas. I see respect as an amalgam of many gifts gathered and offered–small or large–as they become available: Recognition. Openness. Challenge. Empathy. Evaluation. Acceptance. Responsibility. Trust. Not all of them are needed in equal amounts; they can change from relationship to relationship and within a relationship over time.

I’d tell my students that they didn’t have to give me the whole “respect” package, but they’d need to determine the strengths they had that would allow us to work together. If recognition, evaluation, challenge, and responsibility were their strengths, they could throw in the occasional openness or trust or empathy in order to get better at them over time. As the adult in the room, I’d try to show them the whole package as often as possible, but I had my strengths and weaknesses, too.

That would be cm’s who linked you to Mr B. Then I went ahead and linked you to Professor Elemental (“Fighting Trousers“). As we are both sock-puppets of Rebecca Watson, you would be justified in blaming her.

@ oldmrbear

if you want to comment on my little tool that would be cool too.

Frankly, I fail to get the gist of what you are trying to say there. I am sure it makes perfect sense in your head, it is just that it is not coming across that well in your comment. Do not take this too personally – as many do the same (myself included).

…This is the place to leave ranting, right? Because I’m too fucking angry to speak now. This is about the lawsuit against McCormack for giving herself a DIY medication abortion in Idaho:

In September 2011, within minutes of the case’s formal dismissal, Hearn helped McCormack file a civil suit against county prosecutor Mark Hiedeman. Hearn’s argument was that certain Idaho restrictions on abortions—including its recent pain-capable legislation—were unconstitutional. He aimed to prevent Hiedeman from prosecuting McCormack, or any other woman, for obtaining an illegal abortion.

McCormack and Hearn won a preliminary injunction from the District Court. The state appealed, and the case made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to have the case dismissed, arguing that McCormack lacked standing because she was not currently seeking an abortion. (Norma McCorvey, “Roe,” was able to go forward only because she was pregnant at the time of her suit.) Hearn realized that he needed a doctor to intervene as a co-plaintiff, since a doctor could argue that the law prevented him from carrying out his medical obligations. But he couldn’t find one willing to join the suit.

As it happened, however, Hearn is also a doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Idaho. In February 2012, he became a co-plaintiff himself. “I intervened in this thing as a doctor against my wishes,” says Hearn. “I think it is so unfair that to a woman, the court says: ‘Go away. A doctor has to bring the case for you.’ It really reminds me of during the Civil War days, when they told slaves: ‘You can’t appear in court because you’re not a real person. Your master can come in and talk about those things.’”

Jane Crow legal punishments against pregnant women, personhood and fetal rights bills, and now WOMEN have no legal standing re pregnancy EXCEPT WHILE PREGNANT? *raaaage* And this was integral to Roe v Wade. I have no words for my disgust.

Good Morning. Musings are good and I generally find them way more approachable than pronouncements. I hadn’t thought much about the authoritarian aspect. That is museable. My concept of respect does have a huge component of defense. Not too surprising, given my reactionary nature.

My comments to you were certainly influenced by this defensive nature. My empathy was triggered by your statement “I am a trusting fool”. My first thoughts were, no, no, no, watch out! Betrayal of trust is nasty, painful business. Run! So rather than put my sensitive trust on the line, I’ll put the onus on the bad guy to earn my trust/respect. And lots of it for a good buffer. Kinda fuzzy thinking I know.

Thanks for the musings, they will give me something more to ponder on this rainy Sunday.

No worries. Communication failure is nothing new to me. My only hope is to double down and practice, practice, practice. ;) (Think 25% is impressive? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet…)

“Frankly, I fail to get the gist of what you are trying to say there.”

OK, fair enough. Moving past a couple of feeble self-deprecating double entendres… In the referenced post I was using the concepts of acute and chronic pain to better understand aspects of social privilege, sexism and racism. I have a long time personal relationship with both types of pain. I understand both and the distinction between them is clear in my mind.

Due to my privilege I don’t experience sexism the way others do. I think of my experience in terms of acute pain. Yeah it hurts, but ultimately it will pass. Mostly just a pain in the arse. To better understand the experience of others, an experience I will never have, I remind myself of chronic pain. Soul crushing, never ending chronic pain.

No motormouths. Look at your own pattern of behavior. If you find yourself taking up 20% or more of a thread; if every other comment is from you; if you find yourself making 3, 4, 5 comments in a row…you’re a boring ass. Shut up for a while. Let other people speak. Stop babbling, step back, write a longer comment offline, and think about it before you post it. Motormouths are either dangerously obsessed or are practicing a form of online harassment, and I will shut them down. – Professor Poopyhead

Speaking of motormouths, we’ve got someone heading towards 33% on the ‘I have no idea what I’ve gotten myself into’ thread – which would be impressive if the guy wasn’t a complete asshat. (I’m finding it difficult to read the thread without the browser deciding to keel over and die, which would be a laughable cause and effect of being exposed to the amount of stupidity on display there by the threadhog.)

In another forum, I participated in a discussion on the 2nd Amendment and gun control. Some think that the right to bear arms enshrined in the 2nd Amendment is absolute regardless of the type of “arms”, whether they be handguns or “assault weapons”. Others responded that if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted in such an absolutist fashion, then we would have to allow the private ownership of nuclear weapons (or other WMDs). The 2nd Amendment advocates claim the argument is ridiculous, either by asserting that the 2nd Amendment couldn’t possibly be interpreted in such a way to include nuclear weapons, or that even if we did allow the private ownership of nukes no citizen would seriously purchase them.

Comments? Is the argument bringing up the possibility of private nuke ownership an appropriate one?

Just did a mini-slog through the Douglas11something thread. At least from comment 115 through the end of the thread. I didn’t check the dome to see if he actually went over there.

Athyco, there is a lot to not understand over there. Some stuff I do understand. The important thing, at least in my mind, is that you found a reason to mention it in a comment to me. You do understand the association. I do to, I think. I saw what you did and yes I see more than a little bit of myself over there. Well , make that just a pinching thumb to index finger bit, for ego’s sake.

Scientology and L Ron Hubbard advertisements on the Super Bowl? Was that national? I don’t usually watch TV, but today I had “the game” on in the background. Have these advertisements been around for a while? It may be time to re-up over at Operation Clambake.

The attention seeking of various people here is over and you have now branched into blustering, lying and twisting which will now be exposed. First recant, delete or edit this mockery as it is inflammatory and adds nothing to the debate:

2) Your babble is a book of mythology/fiction.This is just the dumbest thing I have read in years showing you are so desperate for attention, even negative attention you will say anything to attempt to draw it

Apparently you are in ignorance of the universal negative fallacy. And then claiming the only truths are scientific is absurd exposing your vast ignorance and attention seeking. Apparently you need a lesson on Hume, Comte positivism, logical positivism and its death with Popper putting the last nail in the coffin. Hume himself acknowledged that historical testimony is the vast majority of valid evidence. Positivism and logical positivism saying the only truths are empirically verified died a slow death starting at the end of the nineteenth century and buried in the mid-twentieth century after Popper clarified that nothing can actually be empirically verified, and that to be truly scientific a statement/hypothesis must be able to be contradicted by a possible or conceivable observation. So much for your God must be scientifically proven idea. And so historical evidence is just as valid. Further, science relies upon inductive inference assigning a probability and does not therefore prove anything. It is not absolute so it is absurd to claim the only truths are scientific and God must be proven with conclusive scientific evidence. Because of Poppers critiques of falsifiability instead of verificationism, science is philosophically based so you have no clue what you are talking about saying stuff like, “Philosophical necessity won’t count for squat.” Science is based upon philosophical necessity, w/o that, there is no science genius.

And the previous was the dumbest thing I have read in years, until seconds later I read this:

All your arguments against abiogenesis based on likelihood and logic are irrelevant, because they all also apply equally to God. If abiogenesis is too comples to occur spontaneously then God is even moreso. If it can be allowed that God is eternal and needs no cause or explanation, then neither does abiogenesis.

Saying if abiogenesis is too complex to occur naturally then God is even moreso limited is just inexcusably idiotic. Complete non-sequitur and bizarrely irrational. You just lost any credibility as even rabid atheists and anti-theists can see the stupidity in this. The super-natural creator is subject to and limited by the natural laws of His creation. Right. Do you realize how many logical fallacies you just employed? Strawman, non-sequitur, limiting omnipotence.

1) Your whole premise rests on a several logical fallacies such as making the creator subject to and limited by His creation, limiting omnipotence; limiting omnipotence and reducing it to your level of ignorance; attempting to make your finite ignorance the standard raising your finitude to omnipotence/omniscience.

2) Then the logical fallacy of strawmanning this issue. In order for the unbeliever to rationally approach these issues, they logically are obligated to treat them as hypotheticals and analyze them for what they claim to be. You cannot change definitions and insert your a priori biases as you have. You must take the Biblical accounts with the definitions as they are and analyze them for what they claim to be, not change God into a caricature of what you want to mock in willful ignorance and bias as you have. God by definition is omnipotent, beyond, separate from and not subject to His creation. A painter is not limited to and subject to his painting but by your assertion they are.

Next, you keep making assertions and then throwing up links instead of properly quoting the section of the article you think supports you. And the reason you do this is because you are lying about what your link says apparently hoping no one will call you on your bluff. Didnt work. So in the future learn how to make an argument which means to state your claim/assertion and then quote the evidence that you think supports your assertion here for all to read, couple that with logic for a valid/successful conclusion. So making an assertion then copying a link isnt an argument or even evidence. A link is merely so the evidence you quote can be located verified. So do not try this tactic of falsely asserting and then posting a link hoping you wont get, again.

Now then, as for your false assertions. First, the vid we talked about before stated hundreds of nucleotides in the alleged NATURAL PREBIOTIC ENVIRONMENT, which is obviously false and inarguable. The best you have done is falsely assert a few others. Read your own article genius, TNA is synthetic having nothing to do with the alleged natural prebiotic environment:

“Molecular evolution provides a powerful approach for investigating the functional properties of nucleic acids 6,7. Until now, this method has been limited to DNA and RNA or close structural analogues thereof (for a review see ref. , because these were the only
polymers with enzymes that could transcribe, reverse-transcribe and
amplify genetic information 8. Extending this approach to artiﬁcial
genetic systems like TNA…”

And this article has next to nothing to do with abiogenesis, it speaks of bioenergetics proposing cell membranes become less leaky so your bluster here is exposed as false, “As far as abiogenesis is concerned, I recommend this article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412014389 , for the latest on the research hypothesis I think is most promising:”

This has nothing to do with the universal genetic code forming naturally genius.

Finally the last thing I will expose before making one more comment to you as I don’t want to go too long in one comment is this is just baloney when you say:

In addition to the five nucleotides you mention, there’s also I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt and more

These are nucleosides, not nucleotides which you blustered about here in ignorance when you claimed this.

One last thing. The fundamental problem here that you didn’t and cannot address is that the vid that was linked to was a joke and flat out wrong asserting absurd speculations with no evidence as factual reality in spite of contradictory evidence. It assumed w/o justification a prebiotic atmosphere, a prebiotic atmosphere with, many fatty acids, a prebiotic atmosphere with many fatty acids and hundreds of nucleotides. None of which are remotely factual and the Sutherland, Powner and Gerland experiment showed this, it started with artificial, unnatural synthetic ingredients putting them through an artificial, unnatual synthetic process with intelligent intervention at many crucial steps to purify results, remove lethal by products and add phosphate buffers. I posted the evidence from Powner himself admitting this so it isnt arguable.

Wow, annejones, what a lot of bluster, signifying absolutely nothing… I don’t suppose you realised in amidst that train wreck, that your arguments don’t actually work the way you suppose they do? All you are in effect saying is “my opinion is there is a god”, for which you can adduce no evidence at all, and assemble a disastrous farrago of faulty reasoning in support of your non-argument. Any rational person would take a look at that and say, “no”. 2/10 for effort.

I’ll put this here for reference – turns out when women are given the choice between being housewives and getting a divorce, they choose divorce over losing their career.

In practice, however, egalitarian relationships are difficult to establish. Both work and family are “greedy institutions,” ones that take up lots of time and energy. Many couples find that, once children arrive, it’s impossible for both to do both with equal gusto.

With this in mind, Gerson asked her respondents what type of family they would like if, for whatever reason, they couldn’t sustain an equal partnership. She discovered that, while men’s and women’s ideals are very similar, their fallback positions deviate dramatically.

Men’s most common fallback position is to establish a neotraditional division of labor: 70% hope to convince their wives to de-prioritize their careers and focus on homemaking and raising children. Women? Faced with a husband who wants them to be a housewife or work part-time, almost three-quarters of women say they would choose divorce and raise their kids alone. In fact, despite men’s insistence on being breadwinners, women are more likely than men to say they value success in a high-paying career.

Sorry fuckwit, we are explaining the world to a delusional fool. If your deity isn’t imaginary, you will provide evidence for it. Physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush. Otherwise, all you have is you fallacious presupposition that your deity isn’t imaginary.

Likewise, your babble is a book of mythology/fiction until you provide the conclusive physical evidence to show it is inerrant and the word of your imaginary deity. But, if you can’t show your deity exists first, and you haven’t done that, nor can you do that with your idiotic and fallacious “god of the ever shrinking gaps” fallacious fuckwittery.

I’m waiting for your evidence, say the coordinates of the eternally burning bush. Until then, blather on, but I won’t bother to read your meaningless blather and bombast. You are to stupid to realize you have already lost the argument, and can’t win it with nothing but attitude.

Hume himself acknowledged that historical testimony is the vast majority of valid evidence.

Wash your mouth with soap before you try to drag history into your dreck, anniejones. Historians don’t just take anyone’s word for it. The most important rule of historical research is that people make shit up all the time, so parallel lines of evidence are the gold standard. Just like in any other science. Trying to elevate your opinion to the level of historical evidence is an insult to anyone who studies it.

Faced with a husband who wants them to be a housewife or work part-time, almost three-quarters of women say they would choose divorce and raise their kids alone.

I have to question the sample of women in this study being a fair representation of young women today. The reason I say this is that I literally do not personally know a single woman who has actually done this (divorce to raise her children alone because her career would be threatened). Rather, ALL the mothers whom I know who have sacrificed their careers to raise their children do so very willingly for the sake of the family. My wife included.

In fact, despite men’s insistence on being breadwinners, women are more likely than men to say they value success in a high-paying career.

Possibly, but I wouldn’t at all think most mothers would value a high-paying career more than an intact family, if they had to choose. Again, I see absolutely no evidence of that in my life.

I have to question the sample of women in this study being a fair representation of young women today. The reason I say this is that I literally do not personally know a single woman who has actually done this (divorce to raise her children alone because her career would be threatened). Rather, ALL the mothers whom I know who have sacrificed their careers to raise their children do so very willingly for the sake of the family. My wife included.

If they already have a family, many women (just like many men) tend to care about what happens to them. That does not mean if they don’t already have a family, many women (just like many men) wouldn’t prefer a successful career to having a family. And if that family included a spouse who insists they have no kind of career but instead has to stay at home to raise the kids, not because they are constrained economically to do so but because that is supposed to be their ‘natural’ role, I wouldn’t be surprised if many would want a divorce. I know I would, but I wouldn’t want kids at all. Many would not be willing to go to such lengths to ‘sacrifice’ for their children, generally because they don’t assume it would be good for the children no matter what the marriage is like.

I have to question the sample of women in this study being a fair representation of young women today. The reason I say this is that I literally do not personally know a single woman who has actually done this (divorce to raise her children alone because her career would be threatened). Rather, ALL the mothers whom I know who have sacrificed their careers to raise their children do so very willingly for the sake of the family. My wife included.

And, of course, her decision was entirely her choice, pure free will. No influence at all of patriarchy that educates women to priotitize housekeeping over personal achievement. No influence at all from your awfully oblivious self as well. No siree.

If they already have a family, many women (just like many men) tend to care about what happens to them. That does not mean if they don’t already have a family, many women (just like many men) wouldn’t prefer a successful career to having a family.

I understand that. But that isn’t the context of the question. It specifically mentions what would happen “once children arrive” and “for whatever reason, they couldn’t sustain an equal partnership”. Because how can women “divorce and raise their kids alone” if they don’t have children to begin with?

But maybe I am wrong and the study actually does give an accurate and a fair representation of women’s opinions. But all this study actually shows is that most women may think they would divorce and raise their children alone if confronted with the situation, but in reality they are more likely not to do so when actually in the situation. I have known several women who I think would think that is what they would do. But again, I don’t know a single mother who has actually done it once children arrived.

And, of course, her decision was entirely her choice, pure free will. No influence at all of patriarchy that educates women to priotitize housekeeping over personal achievement. No influence at all from your awfully oblivious self as well. No siree.

I have to question the sample of women in this study being a fair representation of young women today. The reason I say this is that I literally do not personally know a single woman who has actually done this (divorce to raise her children alone because her career would be threatened). Rather, ALL the mothers whom I know who have sacrificed their careers to raise their children do so very willingly for the sake of the family. My wife included.

On the one hand we have data from research carried out by a qualified and trained sociologist, along with an analysis of research done by others, and on the other we have your personal experience.

You don’t have to. Just giving my opinion. And as I mentioned previously, I’m aware that I very well could be wrong about it.

Do you personally know a mother who left a marriage and raised her children by herself specifically because her career would be threatened if she remained in the marriage?

But again, there is a difference in what women may think they would do than what they actually would do. The study gives data supporting the former, whereas my personal experiences is evidence against the latter.

Comments? Is the argument bringing up the possibility of private nuke ownership an appropriate one?

Granting the hilariously ahistorical reading that the Second Amendment even describes a right for private ownership of “arms” in the first place, of course it’s appropriate to explore the implications of the argument that the right is absolute. What could be inappropriate about that?

Exploring those implications produces results that are manifestly absurd, and it becomes necessary for those who argue for an absolute reading either to justify the absurd results (explain why it’s OK for citizens to own nukes, even if just in theory), or to reconcile the concept of an absolute Second Amendment with the impositions of restrictions on the types of “arms” that may be privately owned (explain how the right can be absolute and qualified at the same time).

It is, indeed, harder to divorce if there are children involved. This is one reason that abusers sabotage birth control: to retain control of the person and make it harder for them to leave. But unless you’re arguing that that’s a good thing, the better position to take socially would be to make it easier for women (and men) to divorce abusers, even if children are involved. Including making it easier for single parents to have careers and still raise children.

The point, of course, is (as Amphiox) points out, to paint absolutists into a rhetorical corner. Of course private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own nukes – no-one who makes that argument could be taken seriously. So that means that the Second Amendment can’t be absolute, and there have to be some restrictions. Once the principle of restrictions is conceded, the discussion becomes a matter of where to draw the line. If not nukes, then what else is forbidden? Tanks, grenades, SMAWs? Assault rifles? And can there be licensing restrictions even for those “arms” that are permitted?

You don’t have to. Just giving my opinion. And as I mentioned previously, I’m aware that I very well could be wrong about it.

Your opinion is not worth anything, so why offer it ? You chose to offer your opinion, which indicates you think it is worthwhile. You need to show why your opinion is worthwhile. In otherwords, you must provide evidence to support your opinion, which you failed to do. You need to explain your failure to offer evidence as well.

annejones, your habit of never making clear who you are addressing/quoting is frankly irritating, and the fact that you don’t provide links to the threads on which the comments you are responding to appear doesn’t help. I never know who you’re talking to when you say “you”, and since I have better stuff to do than figuring out what the fuck you’re on about I’ll just quickly respond to the part where you “quoted” me (at least for now):

this is just baloney when you say:

In addition to the five nucleotides you mention, there’s also I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt and more

These are nucleosides, not nucleotides which you blustered about here in ignorance when you claimed this.

No, dear, they are bases. Just like A, T, C, G and U. Link any of those to a sugar and you have a nucleoside. Link a phosphate group to that nucleoside and you have a nucleotide. Don’t pretend you know what you’re talking about, okay?

Also, I never said “In addition to the five nucleotides you mention, there’s”. You made that part up. I mentioned I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt in addition to A, T, C, G, U. If you really want I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt to correspond to nucleosides, then that’s fine by me. In that case, I mentioned those nucleosides in addition to adenosine, thymidine, cytidine, guanidine and uridine. Happy?

It assumed w/o justification a prebiotic atmosphere, a prebiotic atmosphere with, many fatty acids, a prebiotic atmosphere with many fatty acids and hundreds of nucleotides.

Don’t say things that are wrong. We know a lot about the prebiotic earth because it left its mark everywhere. Take note, there is both positive evidence here which suggest theories as well as negative evidence which invalidates theories. The papers I reference are inconsistent with every creation story ever proposed by religions.

All concepts must be falsifiable in order to be useful or even considered. The intelligent design concept, for example, is falsifiable. It makes the claim that biology exhibits traits indicative of intelligent agency in their design. Every biological structure to my knowledge can be explain by unguided action, and every structure whose mechanism for origination is well known occurred entirely naturally without intelligent guidance. This is both a positive indication that intelligent design is likely wrong, and an negative indication in the systems we are certain of that intelligent design is falsified. A reasonable person, therefore, cannot support intelligent design without extraordinarily compelling evidence.

Science is based upon philosophical necessity, w/o that, there is no science genius.

Lulwut? Do you actually work in any scientific field? I know the driving force for scientific genius in my field isn’t philosophical necessity, but a driving need from the public to find answers. I work in nanotechnology and opto-electronics, and the biggest driving force for us to find answers is the need for solar power to be cheap and the need to store vast quantities of energy (also, cheap flexible electronics. That would be cool too). We are then constrained by the materials we have access to and the theories and facts which describe systems we do understand and (most importantly) the way the world really works. Nowhere in there are we driven by philosophical babble.

Philosophy did not generate science. Human need generates science. That same human need causes us to generate philosophy and mathematics and many other disciplines.

So much for your God must be scientifically proven idea.

An idea is worthless unless it causes action. Ideas that cause action must make claims about the structure and nature of reality (which is firmly within the realm of science). All supernatural claims to date have either been 1) falsified or 2) don’t contain a cause to action. In other words, gods are either bullshit, worthless or both.

And this article has next to nothing to do with abiogenesis, it speaks of bioenergetics proposing cell membranes become less leaky so your bluster here is exposed as false

… really? You’re claiming that the formation of stable lipid bilayers has nothing to do with abiogenesis? I’m just a chemist, not a biologist, but the connection here is obvious to me. Natural formation of separate aqueous environments is a necessary condition for the propagation of those same environments. The structure of those membranes confines the chemical reactions that allow their propagation (which we know occurs abiotically, I’ve done it personally in a variety of solvents). Really, you should spend some time learning how things work before claiming how they must have come to be.

Oh dear, annejones. I had hoped for better.
.
Of course the bible is a work of fiction. Just like every other “holy” text of every other religion humans have invented over the ages. You really don’t get to have a text treated as if it were anything other than human-invented, just on your say-so, you know. How seriously would you take someone demanding you treat the koran as the word of god? Tsk tsk.
.
You think it’s OK to claim the existence of an intelligence not subject to any of the laws of physics, offer no actual evidence for this other than your own opinion, and expect to get taken seriously? Oy.
.
Of course, if you have any grounds other than unevidenced opinion for believing this intelligence exists, and that it happens to match the contradictory figure described in various different parts of the bible and other xtian texts, please feel free to adduce ’em. I won’t hold my breath, though.
.
Oh, and don’t forget Ockham’s razor. There is nothing for which adding goddidit adds to our understanding. Resorting to goddidit for abiogenesis or the big bang is no better – no cleverer, no more useful – than praying to Zeus to go easy on the thunderbolts.

Yes, it is, regrettably, necessary to grant it in practice. That doesn’t mean it isn’t hilariously ahistorical, or that alternative readings can’t be discussed, endorsed and promoted. The Supreme Court can, after all, change its mind.

Granting the hilariously ahistorical reading that the Second Amendment even describes a right for private ownership of “arms” in the first place, of course it’s appropriate to explore the implications of the argument that the right is absolute. What could be inappropriate about that?

Exploring those implications produces results that are manifestly absurd, and it becomes necessary for those who argue for an absolute reading either to justify the absurd results (explain why it’s OK for citizens to own nukes, even if just in theory), or to reconcile the concept of an absolute Second Amendment with the impositions of restrictions on the types of “arms” that may be privately owned (explain how the right can be absolute and qualified at the same time).

The point, of course, is (as Amphiox) points out, to paint absolutists into a rhetorical corner. Of course private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own nukes – no-one who makes that argument could be taken seriously. So that means that the Second Amendment can’t be absolute, and there have to be some restrictions. Once the principle of restrictions is conceded, the discussion becomes a matter of where to draw the line. If not nukes, then what else is forbidden? Tanks, grenades, SMAWs? Assault rifles? And can there be licensing restrictions even for those “arms” that are permitted?

Thank you, casus. I completely agree with your reasoning.

Now, can you guess where I’m going with this? I’m guessing most others already do considering the lack of responses.

And joey zooms right over my point. About how common it is for some men, when talking about issues that effect women, use their wife an the example to try to refute the point.

Also pulling that case out does not excuse the inanity of arguing that women will going through nine months of pregnancy in order to “abort” the fetus when out of the body but still attached because of the fear of “sticks sharp” in their body.

Do you personally know a mother who left a marriage and raised her children by herself specifically because her career would be threatened if she remained in the marriage?

I personally know several women who chose to divorce and be a single parent because of their ex’s insistence on them giving up their careers and staying home. I also know several couples where the man decided to sacrifice his career in order to be a househusband and stay at home parent.

I do love the UKOGB (here’s one I don’t think has been posted here yet: http://youtu.be/pLgJ7pk0X-s), but I must say that (aside from Mr. B,) my two favorite uke players are Kate Micucci (of Garfunkel & Oates), and Amanda Fucking Palmer (even if she does use a pick: http://youtu.be/Ni6qaNUcd9E)

Your whole premise rests on a several logical fallacies such as making the creator subject to and limited by His creation, limiting omnipotence; limiting omnipotence and reducing it to your level of ignorance; attempting to make your finite ignorance the standard raising your finitude to omnipotence/omniscience.

You cannot, annejones, assume properties such as omnipotence or omniscience in a creator, without actual positive evidence for them, anymore than you can assume the creator itself.

Nothing you have said has added anything cogent to your argument as demonstrated by your very first post. You may as well have kept it to that one post for all the good anything else you’ve posted has done for your arguments.

Harp all you want about the complexities, unknowns, or difficulties, real or imagined, with abiogenesis theory. It does not matter. Every argument of this sort you apply against abiogenesis bounces back to you and applies with even greater force to the idea of a creator.

If a process such as abiogenesis is too complex and difficult to arise spontaneously, then a creator entity intelligent enough to direct it is even more complex and difficult to arise spontaneously. If said creator entity can be viewed as not subject to the requirement of having to arise spontaneously, then neither does the original process itself either.

Even if you can demonstrate that abiogenesis by all currently envisioned means are impossible, that does not provide you any viable argument in support of a creator of any kind. The explanation does not default to god in the event that abiogenesis or evolution or relativity or what have you turns out wrong. Any number of alternative explanatory frameworks as yet unimagined still remain as hypothetical possibilities.

You cannot logic or rhetoric your way out of the circle. It can only be broken with POSITIVE EVIDENCE.

We have POSITIVE EVIDENCE for portions of abiogenesis theory. That gives us the impetus to pursue those theories further, and look for more positive evidence.

There is NO positive evidence for creator theory, and thus we do not pursue it. If you wish for creator theory (theories, actually) to be considered, then you must provide the POSITIVE EVIDENCE to get the ball rolling.

It does not necessitate complete evidence or absolute proof. Just a small piece of real, POSITIVE EVIDENCE that a creator does exist. But you do not have even that.

We humans do not yet have the nanotechnology by which we can grab atoms with little machines and assemble molecules brick by intentional brick.

“Synthetic” chemistry means creating a certain set of starting conditions, tossing in the ingredients, and letting the laws of chemistry proceed as they would.

We humans also do not yet possess the capability of altering or suspending those natural laws of chemistry.

And that means that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we can do with synthetic chemistry can occur naturally, if the those crude starting conditions that we set up should arise naturally, somewhere in the universe. Indeed, MUST occur.

If I use a bulldozer to dig a hole, in order to study how a ball might roll down its slope, that does not mean that balls would not roll down slopes without intelligent intervention.

Joey could discuss the geology of the Grand Canyon and it would come around to gender essentialism and/or women not having full bodily autonomy. Or at least, this has happened in every conversation Joey has been involved in to date.

I don’t know of any cases where the court changed it’s mind on a major issue without first changing the makeup of the bench. (I might just be ignorant, law isn’t my field) Unless the constitution is amended, the conclusions in Heller will most likely stand until the bench is mostly replaced.

Also, many of the views the court takes are dramatically ahistorical. I doubt the founders expected that the first amendment would ban school lead prayer. I also doubt that the drafters of the 14th amendment expected it to extend rights and protections to homosexuals. The history and intent of a law can only inform its interpretation so much. The bill of rights as a whole wasn’t meant to apply to the states at all, so trying to interpret it in that light is itself an ahistorical exercise.

Most of the current gun control proposals, however, don’t really tread on the decision in Heller as far as I can see. Expanding background checks and training requirements does not preclude a law abiding citizen from exercising a right to self defense, or even a right to firearm ownership. Free speech is limited in cases of fraud, libel and incitement. It’s reasonable to limit a right to firearm ownership to protect the public’s interests by the same logic.

One thing I think is funny/tragic is that the debate is focusing so much on ‘assault weapons’, which are largely irrelevant, and regulations for pistol ownership aren’t being discussed seriously.

And this article has next to nothing to do with abiogenesis, it speaks of bioenergetics proposing cell membranes become less leaky so your bluster here is exposed as false

That you think that the bioenergetics of lipid membranes have nothing to do with abiogenesis is telling.

You are trying to argue against the possibility of a process occurring about which you KNOW NOTHING. Think about that for a moment.

If someone came to you wishing to discuss the moral teachings of Jesus Christ without having ever read the bible, or any of the testaments or any of the apocrypha, who went on to demonstrate that he was not even aware of Christ having been crucified, and insisted on continuing the conversation even after said deficiencies in his theological knowledge had been pointed out to him, what would you think of him?

Aryan Jesus thread isn’t very serious, but I won’t derail it anyway. The word “guyliner” appeared in the comments. Now, I don’t think Rob in Memphis meant anything bad with it, but it’s one of my (oh so many) pet peeves.

It’s a fucking eyeliner.

Not guyliner.

It’s just called guyliner so that men who wear it would be less “degraded” by using women’s cosmetics.

Is that really where he’s going with that? I hope not, I don’t like the idea of being implicated in such stupidity.

That would be *old* stupidity from Joey, as in same old stupid shit. We went the rounds of “what if/9 months pregnant/sharp sticks, fear of” crap well over a year ago. Joey never misses a chance to vomit it all up again.

It’s just called guyliner so that men who wear it would be less “degraded” by using women’s cosmetics.

Well, yeah. Wouldn’t want men feeling all emasculated for wearing cosmetics, golly, just think of how degrading it would be to compare them to a historical example of a cosmetics wearin’ man, like…Ramses. :D

Seriously though, I get it more now after reading Misogyny. The emphasis of “evil femininity comin’ to get you!” placed on scent, cosmetics and dress throughout the ages is overwhelming.

Also, many of the views the court takes are dramatically ahistorical. I doubt the founders expected that the first amendment would ban school lead prayer

To be perfectly honest, I don’t give a quarter dram of homeopathically diluted rat piss what the founders expected. Or what they wanted, or what they meant. They’re dead, they don’t get a say anymore; we need to decide things based on reality as it stands today, and not what a bunch of centuries-dead aristocrats thought it ought to.

Unless the constitution is amended, the conclusions in Heller will most likely stand until the bench is mostly replaced.

This is probably true, and is the reason for this:

One thing I think is funny/tragic is that the debate is focusing so much on ‘assault weapons’, which are largely irrelevant, and regulations for pistol ownership aren’t being discussed seriously.

Heller explicitly protects unlimited handgun ownership, so until it’s overturned, that’s basically a no go, no matter how much sense it makes.

Yeah, I’m afraid so, going by the sentences he quoted and bolded. Like:

of course it’s appropriate to explore the implications of the argument that the right is absolute. What could be inappropriate about that?

“Of course it’s appropriate for me to explore the implications of WHAT IF THE WOMAN DECIDES TO ABORT 30 SECONDS BEFORE BIRTH OR JUST BEFORE THE UMBILICAL CORD IS CUT! What could be inappropriate about that?”

And:

Of course private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own nukes – no-one who makes that argument could be taken seriously. So that means that the Second Amendment can’t be absolute, and there have to be some restrictions. Once the principle of restrictions is conceded, the discussion becomes a matter of where to draw the line

“Of course she can’t kill the baby in those situations… so that means bodily autonomy cannot be absolute! Restrictions! Where to draw the line!”

I don’t give a quarter dram of homeopathically diluted rat piss what the founders expected.

Neither do I. I just brought it up because people were remarking that the current reading of the 2nd amendment is ahistorical. Since the reading of pretty much every other amendment is also ahistorical, that criticism is a very weak one.

Heller explicitly protects unlimited handgun ownership

That wasn’t the reading of Heller that I got. When I get a chance, I’ll look more carefully at the decision (unless you have a specific quotation). I thought Heller prevents the state from banning pistols, but New York City is still appealing its handgun licensing system. Their argument is that just because we can’t ban pistols doesn’t mean we can’t regulate their ownership.

One can make the argument that handguns are legitimately self-defence weapons. That was what they were first designed to be and do. A comparatively short range weapon, with a smaller caliber bullet than rifles (which pre-dates them), small and short for ease of use and maneuver in closer quarters. Meant to be used as a weapon of last resort as the enemy closes on your position with bayonets (or other bladed weaponry), after you’ve fired your rifle round and don’t have time to reload.

The rifle on the other hand was always an offensive weapon, meant to hit the enemy at the greatest possible range, before he can close on you and threaten you, a weapon of surprise attack and initiative.

The “assault” rifle, or course, was first designed to assault trenches defended by static machine-gun emplacements.

of course it’s appropriate to explore the implications of the argument that the right is absolute. What could be inappropriate about that?

What gooey our pet wannabe tyrant slavemaster of women and doctors continually failed to recognize was that it was not the mere act of exploring the implications of the argument that was the inappropriate thing, it was the MANNER in which he chose to do that exploration that was the inappropriate thing.

Since the reading of pretty much every other amendment is also ahistorical, that criticism is a very weak one.

I take your point. However, there are degrees of wrongness, and an interpretation of the Second Amendment based on an originalist approach that finds a right for private gun ownership is much wronger than either of the other examples you provide.

Also, the ahistoricity of the interpretation in Heller is especially relevant, because the Supreme Court asserted that it was arguing from history.

Regardless of all that, it was a throwaway comment in the first place, and wasn’t intended as a substantive criticism of the decision. Remember that I took it for granted, anyway.

A comparatively short range weapon, with a smaller caliber bullet than rifles (which pre-dates them), small and short for ease of use and maneuver in closer quarters. Meant to be used as a weapon of last resort as the enemy closes on your position with bayonets (or other bladed weaponry), after you’ve fired your rifle round and don’t have time to reload.

Not really. The earliest battlefield use of pistols was as a cavalry weapon, to soften up the enemy before driving a charge home. A muzzle loading musket was too unwieldy to use on horseback, and a slowmatch was right out. Pistols used the more expensive wheellock (until the flintlock became standard on both due to improvements in springs and metal technologies), which didn’t need a length of burning fuse on hand to fire. They were initially too expensive to be used by common footsoldiers. Outside the cavalry, pistols in the military have,like swords, been carried by officers, not the rank and file, who typically get pikes/muskets/rifles w/bayonets. The initial civilian uses of pistols were crime and duelling. In fact, the first written record of pistols is an ordinance banning them in city limits, because they could be carried concealed and used by muggers and assassins.

So please tell me, what else do you think my wife feels about staying with our children?

For one, I think you do not speak for her.

And you do?

——————-
Caine:

I also know several couples where the man decided to sacrifice his career in order to be a househusband and stay at home parent.

I do too. I think it’s great!

———————
casus fortuitus:

I hope not, I don’t like the idea of being implicated in such stupidity.

But your reasoning is sound, casus. I wouldn’t call it stupid.

———————-
Ogvorbis:

Joey could discuss the geology of the Grand Canyon and it would come around to gender essentialism and/or women not having full bodily autonomy. Or at least, this has happened in every conversation Joey has been involved in to date.

Nah…I don’t think I’ve ever brought it up in the free will discussions…

…at least not yet.

————————
Sally:

I don’t know any men who would think it was appropriate to exert unilateral influence over their direction of their partner’s career.

You know what, I don’t know any men who would do that either.

Perhaps I am casually acquainted with people who hold such views, but among my network friends and family, egalitarian marriages are the norm.

Same here. But we may have differences in what we mean by “egalitarian”. Just because I’m the “breadwinner” of the family doesn’t mean our relationship is not egalitarian. Why could it not be considered egalitarian? The way I look at it is she definitely has the toughest job of the two of us by far, staying home with our four children. I don’t have to remind her of that, but I do…very often.

Yeah, it is. It just doesn’t work the way you would like to in the case of bodily autonomy/abortion.

Go ahead, joey, rewrite those paragraphs you quoted from casus fortuitus to make your case. Do it. I’m looking at them and I’m seeing the problems you’re going to run into already, but I’ll let you do the exercise.

Ever done any rage cleaning? I scare the kittehs if I yell and storm about, but I had to do about three hours of rage cleaning today. Yeah, baseboards, I do have a butterknife wrapped in a dishcloth! Aha, BBQ grill that wasn’t cleaned after the last use, a wire brush and steel wool for you! Hold still, ceiling fan blades!

PZ posts about Sarah Parmenter. Stephanie did that multi-linked NSFW post. Ophelia’s tweet twit unilaterally and unctuously declares such a limited “truce” that he can still tweet snipe with his pals about “Ophelia” or “OB” as long as there’s not an @ to her (for now–you see, he says that he’s a rascal who probably will @ her in the future). Then Rebecca has a post on objectification with the latest artwork she’s received. It’s….aaaarrrrrrrrrggggghhhhh.

No, I do not presume to talk in your wife’s name. I’m just making an inference based on a simple fact – we’re all soaking in patriarchy. In the context we live in, a woman making the choice to abandon her ambitions to be a housewife, especially in the household of a head-in-the-sand oblivious idiot like you, cannot be presumed to be free of pressure.

You mentioned your wife is not alone. Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that every housewife you know happily laid down their dreams in favor of their spouses’? I suppose all of them were as free of external influence as your wife. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

423, Janine: Hallucinating Liar wrote: “Knave, it is not that she is the authority and that you must bend to her rule. It is that you better not discount her experience. Because too many people discount the lives and experiences of transgendered people. In fact, with this answer and how you are addressing Katherine, you are dismissing her. (And you have been wondering why I have not been too fond of you.)”

Thanks for the promotion, but I’m good with fool. :D
But you are right–in Bizarro Universe, where PZ Myers is a creationist. If Katherine’s experiences, and that of others wouldn’t matter, there would be no gender studies, and if I really didn’t care, I wouldn’t know about them. And bring them up! Sometimes it’s good to keep an eye on the proportions. I made the terrible mistake of writing about “biological men”, instead of writing “male” (I also have the “not my native language” joker card) and made clear that gender and sex are different things. So what else do you want? Her experiences weren’t even in the game, besides her hinting that she has some. How can I discount anything I don’t even know anything about? But no worries! Everyone has a weak side, mine is lacking this respect thing, yours is being wrong all the time. Speaking of which, you’re also wrong about the “you’ve been wondering” part, you called attention to yourself. I’m not this bob dude and don’t plan on making advances. You are just “someone’s wrong on the internet” so far, which is neither terribly bad, nor working in your favor. So plenty of room for improvements in any direction. Hope that wasn’t too irreverent this time.
***
On the topic of the ingroup using their arcane word blacklist to brute force against newcomers to see if they have foul thoughts (i.e. “demanding apologies or explaining themselves submission power fantasies”): Let’s see what Steven Pinker has jotted down (and please do ruin your eyes and read the article):

“First, words are not thoughts. Despite the appeal of the theory that language determines thought, no cognitive scientist believes it”

What that means is that there is at least some little tiny disagreement that playing word sheriff is effective at all, and then you may lookup “euphemism threadmill” as well, by the same (awesome) guy. Now of course, overt sexist/racist language, or anything that promotes fascism, racism, or music of the band “Supertramp” should be policed. I guess were on the same page on this one.

Yes. I use the word “egalitarian” to mean “embodying the principles of equality.” You use it to mean… something. I’m not sure what.

Just because I’m the “breadwinner” of the family doesn’t mean our relationship is not egalitarian. Why could it not be considered egalitarian?

Voluntarily entering into an unequal relationship does not magically transform the inequality into equality. Your wife is not working. She is not developing skills that will serve to further her ability to take care of herself if you should die or suddenly decide to up and leave. She is dependent on your for economic security (which, in today’s world, also means food and shelter security). You are not dependent on her for economic security. You are dependent on her for unpaid labor. That’s not equality. No matter how many warm fuzzies either you or your wife feel about it.